Do you like paying taxes? At regular intervals, a
variety of extremists and kooks trumpet the claim that paying taxes is
voluntary and the Federal Government cannot compel us to turn over “our” money
to “them” every year. This utterly fallacious claim rests on the IRS’s use of
the term “voluntary compliance,” which does not refer to payment of taxes but
rather to each taxpayer’s responsibility
to calculate their taxes, file their paperwork, and pay their taxes on their
own: we are expected to voluntarily comply with the law. The IRS knows we
don’t like paying taxes. On April 14 this year, they announced their estimate
that collectively we pay only 87% of what we owe. This tax gap amounts to $458
billion each year. Just to make that clear: $458,000,000,000.[1]
For a brief moment, let’s pretend we don’t have to
pay taxes. What would this country look like? What would happen to public
schools, police departments and crime rates, highways, and public universities?
Consider clean drinking water, sewers, trash collection, public health
services, and the CDC. What would become of social security, Medicare, Medicaid,
public housing, food stamps, WICK. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are what
we pay for civilized society.”
In ancient Israel there was no central government
as we have today but there was a central shrine—the Temple—run by priests and
Levites, who were the civil workforce of their time. The Temple and the
priesthood were supported by regular payments of the populace based on “voluntary
compliance.” Even earlier, before the Temple was built, people went beyond
paying taxes. Some would pledge themselves, or their child, to lifelong service
in a local sanctuary. Arguably, the most famous example is that of Hannah,
whose story we read on Rosh Hashanah.[2] Hannah is childless. Her husband, Elkanah, brings
her with him each year to worship at the local shrine in Shiloh. On one such
occasion, overwrought and miserable with longing for a child, unable to eat and
in tears, Hannah vows:
“O Lord of Hosts, if You will look
upon the suffering of Your maidservant and will remember me and not forget Your
maidservant, and if You will grant Your maidservant a male child, I will
dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever
touch his head.” (I Samuel 1:11)
Hannah pledges that if God allows her to conceive
and give birth, the child will be dedicated to the sanctuary at Shiloh as a
nazirite for life. In time, such vows were replaced by vows of a monetary value
equivalent to the vowed person’s lifetime service in the sanctuary. The precise
amounts are stipulated in this week’s parashah, B’chukkotai. While such
vows are voluntary contributions, they are akin to taxes because they support
the central national institution, the Temple, and its personnel, the priests.
These vows exist against the background of fixed taxes legislated in the Torah.
Torah doesn’t use the term “tax,” but effectively legislates fixed taxation in
the form of tithes. This week’s parashah, B’chukkotai, touches on
aspects of the national economy (particularly those that support the
Tabernacle) that are effectively taxes.
First, a brief run-down of tithes, which worked on
a seven-year cycle based on the shemittah (sabbatical year). The full
system of tithes is complex; this summary is intended to give you the flavor of
the institution.
• Every year, Israelites
separated the bechorim (the firstborn of their flocks and herd), which de
facto belonged to God and were sent to the Temple. B’chukkotai
includes a provision in Leviticus 27:26–27 for bechorim born to ritually
impure animals to be ransomed and the money, along with a 20% surtax,
contributed to the Temple.
• Next, the Israelites separated
the terumah (“heave offering”) from their grain, oil, and wine
production to give to the priests to support them and their families so they
could dedicate their lives to serving in the Temple.
• After separating terumah,
Israelites separated one-tenth (tithe means “tenth”) of their grain, oil, and
wine. In the third and sixth years of the seven-year cycle, this Ma’aser
Rishon (“First Tithe”) was given to the Levites to support themselves and
their families. The Levites had no land holdings. They worked in the Temple and
the First Tithe was their civil salary.
• The Ma’aser Sheni (“Second
Tithe”), the one-tenth taken in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of
the cycle, was to be brought to the Temple, or redeemed for money that was
brought to the Temple to, “spend on anything you want—cattle,
sheep, wine, or other intoxicant, or anything you may desire. And you shall
feast there, in the presence of Adonai your God, and rejoice with your
household” (Deuteronomy 14:26). This was celebration money.
• In the third and sixth years
of the cycle, the Ma’aser Sheni was set aside for the poor and
distributed to strangers, orphans, widows, and anyone in need.
The complex system of tithes (of which I’ve only
described a portion) supported the Temple and its priesthood, the underclass
poor, provided an economic boost to Jerusalem at regular intervals, and insured
that all Israelites participated in the upkeep and welfare of society. Given
its scope, one would think that people could hardly be induced to pay voluntary
taxes above and beyond the terumah, Ma’aser Rishon, and Ma’aser Sheni.
How many of us pay our taxes on April 15 and then say, “Oh, what the heck—I’ll
just write out another check and send it along to Washington!”? Yet people did,
and apparently often.
Parshat B’chukkotai describes an institution whereby people voluntary
vowed to contribute additional support for the sanctuary by pledging their own “value”
or the value of their child. Perhaps because of its roots in earlier practice
(e.g., Hannah’s vow) it had staying power. These contributions are called votary
pledges. Torah supplies the scale:
When anyone explicitly vows to Adonai
the equivalent for a human being, the following scale shall apply: If it is a
male from twenty to sixty years of age, the equivalent is fifty shekels of
silver by the sanctuary weight; if it is a female, the equivalent is thirty
shekels. If the age is from five year to twenty years, the equivalent is twenty
shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. If the age is from one month
to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and the
equivalent for a female is three shekels of silver. If the age is sixty years
or over, the equivalent is fifteen shekels in the case of a male and ten
shekels for a female. But if one cannot afford the equivalent, he shall be presented
before the priest, and the priest shall assess him; the priest shall assess him
according to what the vower can afford. (Leviticus 27:2-8)
It is natural to squirm with discomfort at the idea
of ascribing differing “values” to human beings. Etz Hayim expresses it
this way:
How do we measure the value of a person? The world
at large values rich people more than poor people, economically productive
people more than less productive, fertile women more than childless women,
clever and attractive people more than others. In God’s temple, however, people
are evaluated “by the sanctuary weight”… God views our worth differently than
the world does.[3]
While this observation concerning modern society is
certainly accurate, the“sanctuary weight” is irrelevant; it is merely the
denomination for payments. Whether counting in dollars or the sanctuary weight,
Torah does indeed “value” people differently depending upon age and sex for the
purpose of making an additional, voluntary contribution to the sanctuary. Why?
The last verse quoted above (v. 8) explains that the valuations are estimates
of what someone in a particular stage and position in life can afford. Those
whose potential for economic productivity is less are expected to contribute
less through their pledge. In an agricultural society, those between twenty and
sixty years of age are the most economically productive and men could produce
more than women, whose labors were divided between children and working the
land. Those between five and twenty were less productive, especially women who
were bearing children; those younger than five had more economic potential than
actual capacity. And, of course, productivity wanes after sixty. The message
is: pay what you can afford.
We also see that if one’s life circumstance does
not fit the general estimate, the priest makes appropriate arrangements. Like
the fixed tithes, the votary pledges were proportional to one’s means. It’s not
that people were “worth” differing amounts, but rather that they were expected
to contribute differing amounts based on what they idealistically, but also
realistically, could afford. Similarly, Torah (Leviticus 5:7, 11) tells us that
one who needs to bring a chatat (“sin offering”) for having committed an
unintentional violation, but cannot afford the standard offering of a female
sheep or goat may bring two turtledoves or two pigeons. If he cannot afford
birds, he may bring a meal offering. Similarly, a woman who cannot afford to
bring a sheep as a chatat to complete her purification after childbirth
may bring less expensive birds (Leviticus 12:8).
I don’t know anyone who relishes paying taxes, and
certainly not anyone who voluntary pays more than required. Yet a PEW Research Center study revealed in 2014 that while 56% of us react
negatively to doing our taxes, 34% like or love doing taxes. The biggest
complaint (57% of those surveyed) is that the wealthy do not pay their fair
share.
We have many legitimate concerns. We want to clean
up the tax system, cut waste, and remove fraud and corruption; inefficiency,
waste, fraud, and corruption undermine the purpose of taxes. Many suggestions
have been offered, such as replacing income tax with sales tax[4], increasing corporate taxes[5], decreasing corporate taxes[6], simplifying the tax code[7]… and the beat goes on. Votary pledges are a
reminder that taxes of all sorts support society, keep it functioning smoothly,
and fund its institutions. They also remind us to respect the value of everyone’s
contribution to society, regardless of means.
Holmes was correct: “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-estimates-458-billion-gap-between-taxes-paid-and-owed-1461868254.
The article quotes Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon as saying that this sum
includes $44 billion in corporate underpayments.
[2]
The birth of Hannah’s son, Samuel, is the Haftarah scriptural parallel for the
birth of Isaac, read in the Torah on the first day of the new year.
[3] Etz Hayim Torah
and Commentary, p. 753.
[6] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-reform-our-corporate-tax-system-2014-05-07.
Here’s a website that compares the effects of lowering and raising corporate
tax rates on job creation: http://corporatetax.procon.org/.
No comments:
Post a Comment